Talk:AI art

The point of these AI pictures is to create an imitation of a real subject. It's not real art because it doesn't have a basis in reality, the same way that an AI image of a photo isn't a real photo. I think that the article title should be "AI-created media" or something like that. 2600:387:3:803:0:0:0:2D (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The article is about artificial intelligence visual art. The article says, for example, "the Whitney Museum of American Art exhibited AI art from throughout Cohen's career." We are not going to decide "the curatorial staffs of prominent art museums really have no idea what art is, we are instead going to go with the personal opinions about art expressed by Wikipedia editor 2600:387:3:803:0:0:0:2D" This is an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources, not a Wikipedia editor's personal opinions about art. If there is anything in this article that is not about art, then, yes, it is off topic and can be moved to another article, like maybe Text-to-image model or AI slop or elsewhere. Asparagusstar (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am of the opinion that this article should be revised so that every mention of artificially generated art, should be amended to read "artificially generated imagery". Other phrases such as "images", "image generation", and ""art"" can be used. And that where the word "artist" is referenced referring to someone who prompts an artificial intelligence model to create imagery, the word "artist" should be replaced with "prompter", as these people do not have a significant enough involvement in the creative process to earn the title of artist. I believe this is necessary as artificially generated pictures are not a form of art, and due to Wikipedia's goal of maintaining accuracy I believe that it is imperative that the article be changed to support this. I'm not going to bother justifying why artificially created "art" is not art, as that is not the point of this talk page. I simply believe that the term "art" used in this page is misleading to the readers. 144.6.121.250 (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

no, for two main reasons

• we're not meant to assume intent with any of those words. the term "art" could be used literally or figuratively, but the article isn't supposed to care about that
• what we are meant to do is compile what sources say. the sources call it art, the article calls it art
• what you mentioned two threads up is effectively using wikipedia as a source, and what you mentioned here would be original research, which are... not optimal play

this isn't to say that i agree or disagree with your points about what the piss puddles are or aren't, i actually agree with most of them, just that the way wikipedia works is geared towards not taking any given editor's personal opinion into account in mainspace unless it can be backed up with a source

as is, sources already exist calling it "art", so regardless of whether or not it's to be taken literally, that's the name that stuck, and it's unlikely that future sources with conflicting names will come in droves large and consistent enough to actually get the article renamed, instead of just having a section added about whether or not it should be referred to as "art"

what do you mean those weren't two? consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 11:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

So do you think it's worth adding perhaps a section that mentions all this? Perhaps labelled controversy or something? 58.178.132.192 (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

if sources are found, a section like this can and probably will be added. such is the nature of wikipedia~

...or in more pessimistic terms, "maybe not with what we currently have" consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 23:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok I'll just gather sources then. Considering there is plenty. 58.178.131.30 (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

About the "the sources call it art, the article calls it art" section. The fact one calls it art does not make it art, because sources can be biased and as such, wrong. That is why one cannot exactly boil it down to "the term "art" could be used literally or figuratively, but the article isn't supposed to care about that", for calling it "art" is factually wrong. Analytic philosophy exists for a reason, the meaning of the words used are meant to be universally understood, agreed upon, and most importantly factual. It is inherently inaccurate to call it art, and if it is not corrected from "art" to "image generation", it misleads readers. While "There is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art" (from the Wiki page for art), however the article states "Artificial intelligence visual art, or AI art, is visual artwork" but when you check visual artwork's Wiki to which the link redirects, it clearly states "Current usage of the term "visual arts" includes fine art as well as applied or decorative arts and crafts" and excludes generative art. Therefore, I would like to formally request to either edit or rewrite the article regarding AI "art", or "visual arts". I believe for the sake of clarity it is of utmost importance to add some clarity to the AI art page, regardless whether or not someone agrees with my views or not, solely for the sake of clarifying said viewpoints brought up in my comment. Okasawa Michio (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:V and WP:NOR. You won't get anywhere on Wikipedia saying that the sources could be wrong so we should rewrite the article based on your personal opinion. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTSOURCE my understanding is that we're not able to reference other wikipedia articles to determine policy. On whether 'philosophy says...' its completely arbitrary to use one form of reasoning over another. We use sources; See WP:PSTS. And to say 'sources are biased' is just a fact. That doesn't mean they're wrong, even if some positivist philosophy has taught you that its possible to purge bias. In this case you seem to be saying, O. M., that we should ignore what the authority says and rely on what we collectively think. That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:NOTADEMOCRACY --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

This article seems highly fallacious. How is it going to assert that automatons carried creativity and intelligence? It is a complete misrepresentation of fact. ~2026-52160-3 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2026 and 1 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashelham (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Salink298 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)